"All this region is very level and full of forests, vines and butternut trees. No Christian has ever visited this land and we had all the misery of the world trying to paddle the river upstream." Samuel de Champlain

The most striking finding of our investigations was the difficulty in obtaining definitive information on the link between hydrocarbon gas drilling and health effects. However, the results point to a number of ways policies can be changed to facilitate better data collection and to avoid obvious risks to animal and human health.

Practices for Providing Better Assessment of Health Impacts

Nondisclosure Agreements

Nondisclosure agreements between injured parties and corporations make it difficult to document incidents of contamination. Compensation in the form of cash, payment for all settlement expenses, an offer to buy the property and/or payment for medical expenses in exchange for a nondisclosure agreement prevents information on contamination episodes and health effects from being documented and analyzed. Nondisclosure agreements are common in all areas of business and are often essential to protect intellectual property. However, when documentation of health problems associated with gas operations is shielded from public scrutiny by a nondisclosure agreement, this is clearly a misuse of this important business tool and should be prohibited. Likewise the lack of prior testing of air and water, and of follow-up testing during drilling and after incidents of suspected contamination, impedes the analysis of health impacts. Even when testing is done, the results are being withheld from interested parties either by government agencies (e.g., by incomplete responses to FOIA requests) or by the industry. If the industry, government agencies, and the public truly want the facts, then appropriate testing must be done, and full disclosure of all data associated with both baseline and incidents of suspected contamination must be made. Without full disclosure of all facts, scientific studies cannot properly be done. Science should drive decisions on whether or not to use a practice such as shale gas drilling, and until scientific studies can proceed unimpeded, then an accurate assessment cannot be made.

Food Safety

A major problem is the lack of federal funding for food safety research. We documented cases where food-producing animals exposed to chemical contaminants have not been tested before slaughter and where farms in areas testing positive for air and/or water contamination are still producing dairy and meat products for human consumption without testing of the animals or the products. Some of these chemicals could appear in milk and meat products made from these animals. In Case 3, a quarantine was instituted after cattle were exposed to wastewater. However, basic knowledge, such as hold times for animals exposed to chemical contaminants as a result of gas operations, is lacking, and research in this area is desperately needed to maintain an adequate level of food safety in our country. Without this information, contaminants in the water, soil and air from gas drilling operations could taint meat products made from these animals, thus compromising the safety of the food supply.

Routes of Exposure

The major route of exposure in the cases documented here is through water contamination. This is perhaps the most obvious problem (seen in all three case studies), but other routes of exposure are of serious concern. Soil contamination can be significant in situations such as that described in Case 3. Although the cases we have documented thus far include only a handful of exposures through affected air, the actual incidence of health effects may be underestimated due to a lack of air sampling. In Case 1, toxicological testing suggested high levels of ambient benzene due to a nearby impoundment pond, but air canister tests were not done at the time. Neither drilling companies nor state environmental regulatory agencies routinely offer air canister tests as a part of testing protocols, and due to the expense, many property owners are reluctant to pursue them on their own. Nevertheless, the effects of air pollution on cardiovascular and respiratory health have been well documented, and we believe that exposure to contaminated air may contribute significantly to the health problems of both people and animals living near gas drilling operations. In several cases where air monitoring was done, the results confirmed the presence of carcinogens commonly known to originate from gas industrial processes such as exploration, drilling, flaring, and compression. Thus, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must include a study of air in its congressionally mandated hydraulic fracturing study if it is to be complete.

Testing

The most important requirement for an assessment of the impact of gas drilling on animal and human health is complete testing of air and water prior to drilling and at regular intervals after drilling has commenced. This includes chemicals used in the drilling muds, fracturing fluid and wastewater (the latter contains heavy metals and radioactive compounds normally found in a par ticular shale). Currently, the extent of testing (particularly for organic compounds) is frequently inadequate and limited by lack of information on what substances were used during the drilling process. In a number of the cases that we have studied, drinking water is clearly unsuitable for human and animal consumption, based not only on the smell and turbidity, but also on pathological reactions to drinking the water. Nevertheless, because of inadequate testing, the water is deemed fit for consumption and use, and neither bottled water nor the large plastic containers known as “water buffaloes” are typically provided for the affected individuals-and even less commonly for animals living on those farms. In Case 1, water was reluctantly provided for the humans (after considerable effort) but not to the animals living on the farm. Even when identified, the health effects of chemicals associated with the drilling process are unknown in many cases. No Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) have been set by the EPA for many of the compounds used, and those that have been set are based on older data that does not take into con sideration effects at significantly lower concentrations (e.g., endocrine disruption). Furthermore, the disclosure of all chemicals involved in the drilling and hydraulic fracturing processes is not required if a component can be justified as a “trade secret.” In order to be complete, air, soil and all sources of potable water used for humans and animals in the vicinity of a well site (at least within 3,000 feet for soil and water tests, and five miles for air monitoring, based on dispersion modeling of emissions from compressor stations) must be tested for all components that are involved in drilling and are likely to be found in wastewater, before any work on the site commences. Sampling must then be repeated at intervals following the commencement of drilling as well as upon suspicion of adverse effects. The following practices must be part of a testing protocol: Photo: Beaver County Blue

I'm the second generation of my family that lives in Richelieu, Quebec, in Canada. My family tree, both from my mother's and my father's side, has its roots in Quebec since the beginning of the 1600s: my ancestors crossed the ocean from France, leaving Perche and Normandy behind them. Both French AND English are my mother tongues: I learned to talk in both languages when I was a baby, and both my parents were perfectly bilingual too.